Jesus Tomb Found, Says Film-maker
One more about this, from Joe Zias:
Quote:THE EXPERTS A QUESTION OF CREDITABILITY
DNA. The DNA expert from Canada spent a few months in Israel before leaving for Canada a few years ago He in fact, worked with our Science and Archaeology Group @ the Hebrew University. According to Dr. Mark Spigelman, our DNA specialist in the group he received a message from the Canadian expert concerning the question of extracting DNA from the James Ossuary apparently at the behest of SJ. Dr. Spigelman personally told him at that time that it was foolish for him to get involved for several reasons, not to mention that the object he wished to run a test on was believed to be a forgery. Secondly, the export of all biological material which is sampled and taken abroad must according to IL law have an export license which we knew quite well would never be given. Thirdly, the film which I viewed showed several experts scraping material from the ossuary, under the worst possible conditions. Lastly, and here is where the main problem occurs, when human remains are placed in the ossuary, they have been decomposed and are just skeletal material. The film tries to give the false impression that they were sampling human tissue which had decomposed in the ossuary whereas it had been long gone before the skeletal material was ever placed there. Final analysis- high probability that the DNA is of anybody who came into contact with the ossuary the past 30 off years, including mine. To say that as one test showed male and one showed female and then jumping to the conclusion that they were married is totally absurd as most of the adult woman in the tomb would have married in, but married to whom? While preparing this report I found the following statement from their DNA expert which is revealing in that Simcha and the BAR Crowd constantly make a big deal out of their so called hard scientific evidence. Seems that their expert may in retrospect have been used in a manner not to his liking. According to their DNA expert in yesterdays on line SciAmer, he states the following :
The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing. ScientificAmerican.com March 2, 07.
Absolutely nothing, Simcha presented it a bit differently as if this was the smoking gun, hard science which proved their agenda!!
PATINA- This is a natural geological process which occurs over time. The forensic people involved in this segment have no experience whatsoever with local materials, in fact, one of the specialists forte is in automobile crashes of which Im sure he is very capable. There was one Israeli involved in this, behind the scenes, who was asked to obtain patina samples for the show. Sometime earlier, he pronounced a metal sheeting found at Qumran which he authenticated as ancient for a NOVA documentary. Within 12 months, the 2,000 year old object was found to have been painted with Barium-Titanium paint, patented in the 1920s to prevent oxidization. Watching this pseudo-science analysis reminds one more of a train wreck than a car crash.
STATISTICS- Whereas their attempt as probability looks impressive, a 600 to 1 chance this it is the Family it falls flat when one realizes that the info. given to the statistician was that of a nuclear family of ca 10 people whereas the truth of the matter is that the family of 10 is an extended family of maybe 50 or more comprising 4-5 generations, as a result it simply cannot be computed. They knew this and I have the feeling that this info. was not divulged to the mathematician. In fact, I published in 1992 a tomb with 15 ossuaries, 88 people and one name. The one person, one ossuary scenario is how the film makers present their findings whereas in an article I published in Atiqot XXII, three of the ossuaries had the remains of a minimum of 6 people. There has been an enormous amount of discussion on the web dealing with the probabilities of this being the family, which I suggest the viewer read, all of which totally dismiss the statistics as of no value whatsoever.
For a more detailed explanation on how they rigged the statistics see the following:
http://ntgateway. com/weblog/ 2007/03/correct- interpretation- of-dr-andrey. html
http://ntgateway. com/weblog/ 2007/03/statisti cal-case- for-identity- of-jesus. html
THE NAMES For those of us familiar with ossuaries and ossuary inscriptions this is, despite all their hype, totally unconvincing as all the names were very common. The ratios of names for that period are as follows: Joseph/Jose 8.3 %, Judah 6.2 %, Jesus 3.5 Matthew 2.4% and Mariam/Mary a whopping 21.4%. Dr. S. Pfann from the University of Judaism has written an impt. Blog on this showing that 75% of the names occurring on Jewish ossuaries during this period are from a pool of but 16 names. (http://www.uhl.ac/)
The important thing to remember here is that individuals outside of Judea, buried in Judea were named according to their place of origin, whereas in Judea this was not necessary. Had the names been Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Nazareth, Joseph of Nazareth etc I would have been totally convinced that this may be the family tomb, but as none of the names have place of origin, they are all Judeans.